Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30088 of 2003 Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Respondent :- The Asstt. General Manager (P.E.F. And Hrd Deptt.) & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- M. Manglik,P. Mohan,Piyush Mishra,R.P.S.Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- Jayant Banerji,S.C.,V. Shukla
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sumit Kakkar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri S.K. Kakkar, Advocate, are present for respondents. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:
“a) issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.10.2001 of respondent no. 1 and 13.11.2001 of respondent no. 2 as Annexure no. 1 and 2 to the petition, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer heavy grave and irreparable loss and injury.
b) issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2001 attached to petition as Annexure no. 3, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer heavy grave and irreparable loss and injury.
c) issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 and 2 to give appointment of the petitioner's on the compassionate ground as per qualification of the petitioner and pay month to month salary to the petitioner till decision of the writ petition, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer heavy grave and irreparable loss and injury.”
3. I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.
4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.
5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 PS